RESUMO
Background: Lower extremity motor dysfunction is one of the most severe consequences after stroke, restricting functional mobility and impairing daily activities. Growing evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can improve stroke patients' lower extremity motor function. However, there is still controversy about the optimal rTMS protocol. Therefore, we compared and analyzed the effects of different rTMS protocols on lower extremity motor function in stroke patients using network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: We systematically searched CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from origin to 31 December 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or crossover RCTs on rTMS improving lower extremity motor function in stroke patients were included. Two authors independently completed article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 17.0) were used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 38 studies with 2,022 patients were eligible for the NMA. The interventions included HFrTMS-M1, LFrTMS-M1, iTBS-Cerebellum, iTBS-M1, dTMS-M1, and Placebo. The results of NMA showed that LFrTMS-M1 ranked first in FMA-LE and speed, and HFrTMS-M1 ranked first in BBS, TUGT, and MEP amplitude. The subgroup analysis of FMA-LE showed that HFrTMS-M1 was the best stimulation protocol for post-stroke time > 1 month, and LFrTMS-M1 was the best stimulation protocol for post-stroke time ≤ 1 month. Conclusion: Considering the impact of the stroke phase on the lower extremity motor function, the current research evidence shows that HFrTMS-M1 may be the preferred stimulation protocol to improve the lower extremity motor function of patients for post-stroke time > 1 month, and LFrTMS-M1 for post-stroke time ≤ 1 month. However, the above conclusion needs further analysis and validation by more high-quality RCTs.Systematic Review Registration:www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier (CRD42023474215).
RESUMO
Background: Although some studies have shown that exercise has a good effect on improving the cardiopulmonary function of stroke patients, it still needs to be determined which exercise method does this more effectively. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different exercise methods in improving cardiovascular function in stroke patients through a network meta-analysis (NMA), providing a basis to select the best treatment plan for stroke patients. Methods: We systematically searched CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases from establishment to 30 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTS) on exercise improving cardiopulmonary function in stroke patients were included, and we screened the included articles and extracted the relevant data. RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 17.0) were used for data analysis. Results: We included 35 RCTs and a total of 2,008 subjects. Intervention measures included high-intensity interval training (HIIT), aerobic training (AT), resistance training (RT), combined aerobic and resistance exercise (CE), and conventional therapy (CT). In the network meta-analysis, the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) ranking result indicated that HIIT improved peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and 6 mins walking distance (6MWD) optimally, with rankings of HIIT (100.0%) > CE (70.5%) > AT (50.2%) > RT (27.7%) > CT (1.6%), and HIIT (90.9%) > RT (60.6%) > AT (48.9%) > RT (48.1%) > CT (1.5%), respectively. The SUCRA ranking result showed that CE improved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) optimally, with rankings of CE (82.1%) > HIIT (49.8%) > AT (35.3%) > CT (32.8%), and CE (86.7%) > AT (45.0%) > HIIT (39.5%) > CT (28.8%), respectively. Conclusion: We showed that exercise can effectively improve the cardiopulmonary function of stroke patients. HIIT was the most effective in improving VO2peak and 6MWD in stroke patients. CE was the most effective in improving SBP and DBP in stroke patients. However, due to the limitations of existing clinical studies and evidence, larger sample size, multi-center, and high-quality RCTs are needed to verify the above conclusions in the future. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier [CRD42023436773].
